MINUTES OF MEETING

      ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS AND PROCEDURES

 

      Sixty-seventh Session

      June 1, 1993

 

 

 

The Assembly Committee on Elections and Procedures was called to order by Chairman Myrna T. Williams at 3:40 p.m., Tuesday, June 1, 1993, in Room 331 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada.  Exhibit A is the Meeting Agenda, Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.

 

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

      Mrs. Myrna T. Williams, Chairman

      Mr. Robert E. Price, Vice Chairman

      Mrs. Jan Evans

      Mr. Val Z. Garner

      Mrs. Joan A. Lambert

      Mr. William A. Petrak

      Mr. Scott Scherer

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

 

      Mr. Joseph E. Dini, Jr.

      Mr. David E. Humke      (Excused)

      Mr. Gene T. Porter      (Excused)

      Mr. Robert M. Sader     (Excused)

 

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

 

      None

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

      Mr. Robert Erickson/Research Director, Legislative Counsel Bureau

      Mr. John R. Crossley/Director, Legislative Counsel Bureau

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

      Mr. Thomas Wilson/Chairman, Nevada Commission on Ethics

      Ms. Kateri Cavin, Deputy Attorney General, State of Nevada

      Ms. Ande Engleman/Nevada Press Association

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AB 566:     Makes various changes relating to commission on ethics.

 

Mr. Thomas Wilson, Chairman, Nevada Ethics in Government Commission, and Ms. Kateri Cavin, Deputy Attorney General, who also served as Legal Counsel to the Commission, attended the meeting in support of AB 566.  An exhibit was provided to the committee which outlined inconsistencies in the legislation concerning confidentiality and which also attached proposed language for bill draft request (Exhibit C).  Mr. Wilson discussed in detail the exhibit dated February 24, 1993 and the attached Proposed Language for Bill Draft Request.   

 

Mrs. Evans asked if a legislator went before the commission to request guidance on future behavior, would it remain the provence of the legislator to waive or not to waive confidentiality.

 

In reply to Mrs. Evans' question, Mr. Wilson stated the only person who could waive confidentiality was the public officer or employee.  The law imposed confidentiality unless affirmatively waived, he declared.

 

Mrs. Evans voiced her understanding confidentiality would continue for the hearing and for the outcome unless waived.  Mr. Wilson reaffirmed she was correct and said changes in AB 566 made deliberations, hearings and meetings consistent; they remained confidential unless waived, and the opinion remained confidential unless waived. 

 

Mr. Scherer asked if the meetings and hearings were also open in a case where an opinion awaited as to past conduct.

 

Mr. Wilson answered Mr. Scherer's question by explaining under the bill a matter which involved past conduct would be public.  Language in the present law stated if an ethical violation occurred, the proceedings were confidential unless they were waived even if done on the commission's motion. However, present law was written if in the judgment of the commission, public interest warranted publishing the opinion or setting aside confidentiality, the commission could do that. 

 

Mr. Wilson told committee he questioned criteria requirement for setting aside confidentiality, and the commission recommended for simplicity if past conduct was involved, as opposed to a request about future conduct, to make it public.

 

Mr. Scherer asked if the opinion would be made public or the whole proceeding public, and Mr. Wilson replied, "The opinion."

 

Mr. Scherer then questioned if the opinion was made public which stated an individual violated the ethics code by past conduct, would the transcript of the proceedings or the evidence presented to the commission be available to the public.  Neither Mr. Wilson nor Ms. Cavin could answer Mr. Scherer's question at the time, and Mr. Scherer stated this was an issue which should be addressed.

 

Ms. Ande Engleman, Nevada Press Association, proponent of AB 566, stated Nevada Press Association supported the Ethics Commission's request to make past behavior opinions public.

She explained the rationale by giving an example of a prior occurrence.  Ms. Engleman referenced Page 3, lines 46 and 47, and asked the committee, which she stated was on advice of Nevada Press Association counsel, if an exemption from the $5,000 penalty could be processed for the press or media who could be the recipient of information but was not the person violating the confidentiality.

 

Deputy Attorney General Kateri Cavin at this time answered Mr. Scherer's prior question by pointing out Page 2, Section 4, lines 13 through 15 and line 31 subsection (f) "It is an opinion relating to the propriety of past conduct, in which case the opinion must be made public."  Therefore, she said, all deliberations would be included in the publicity.

 

There being no further testimony, Mrs. Williams closed the hearing on AB 566.

 

Mrs. Williams opened the hearing on AB 603.

 

AB 603:     Coordinates provisions concerning contracts between public officer or employee and public agency.

 

Chairman Williams informed the committee AB 603 would be rescheduled to allow representative of Washoe Airport Authority to testify.

 

Mrs. Williams opened the hearing on ACR 45.

 

ACR 45:     Limits number of requests that may be submitted to Legislative Counsel during interim for drafting and directs completion of 1,000 bill drafts before convening of 68th session of Nevada Legislature.

 

Mr. John Crossley, Director, Legislative Counsel Bureau, informed the committee ACR 45 was the legislative commission's recommendation to the legislature for bill drafting requests for the 1995 legislative session.  Action taken on SB 48 would affect ACR 45, Mr. Crossley told the committee.  He pointed out two amounts which he thought the committee might want to change and explained SB 48 stated the board of regents could request bill drafts directly which would have to be amended into ACR 45, dropping the number on Page 1, line 24 for the Governor from 310 to 300 if SB 48 was approved.  The board of regents of the University would be given ten bill drafts. 

 

The numbers in the legislation were the same numbers in the past two sessions, Mr. Crossley related, and he cited the addition of the Interim Finance Committee, entitled to ten measures, was the difference from last session (Page 2, lines 24 through 26).

 

Discussion ensued between Mrs. Williams and Mr. Crossley relating to SB 48 and ACR 45 passage and a conflict amendment which Mr. Crossley thought would not occur.  He felt the bills stood alone but would consult with Mr. Malkiewich for possible conflict. 

 

In conclusion, Mr. Crossley called attention to Page 2, lines 44 through 46 which gave 1,000 bill drafts for the 1995 session.

 

Mr. Price questioned if 310 bills was the same number previously received from the administration.  Mr. Crossley confirmed and reiterated the number should be reduced to 300 if SB 48 was approved.  He reminded committee the board of regents of the University should be added with ten bill drafts.  Mr. Price queried how many bills were actually received from the administration this session, and Mr. Crossley said he would get the exact number, and the number would be close to 10.

 

Mrs. Lambert asked Mr. Crossley for information on issues discussed by the commission regarding non-agency bill draft requestors.  In  response to Mrs. Lambert's request, Mr. Crossley pointed out NRS provided other organizations could draw bills with an unlimited number, and he briefly outlined the commission's discussion concerning where bill drafts originated, and noted the general consensus was all requests should come through legislators.

 

Mrs. Lambert conveyed a division among the commission as to whether other entities should be able to have bill drafts without going through legislators.  Some people would like to put limits on the number of bill drafts.  Mrs. Lambert declared she would like to cut it across the board.  A concern was after the session started, all requests would come in, and, once the session started, there were no limits on the number, she added.

 

Mr. Scherer questioned the wisdom of imposing an across-the-board cut.  He asked Mr. Crossley for his thoughts regarding a limit to the number of bills requested by committees during the session and having a 20 percent across-the-board cut on the number of bills which could be requested by legislators and agencies.

 

Mr. Crossley noted the Bureau received bills through committees and many bills were not identified.  Bills which came through committees with no identification were a concern, and the Senate had discussed the issue, he pronounced.

 

Mrs. Williams felt one of the problems was legislature only met biennially, and constituents and groups waited for two years.  Mrs. Williams discussed at times legislators found two additional bills were necessary in order to make a bill work.

 

Mrs. Evans revealed one of her concerns had been the number of bill drafts requested by some of the interim committees.  The committees did not screen as carefully as they should, and some bill drafts had large fiscal notes.  She discussed fiscal responsibility and thought taxpayers' money was wasted when numbers of bills were submitted and many were left in the drawer.

 

Mr. Price responded it was not uncommon for legislators to have a bill drafted not necessarily with the idea of introducing it but to see it in final form before the legislator made a decision on introduction.  He asked for a list of the number of bills from different areas and wondered how many of the one thousand bills ready on the first day of session were from outside or from legislators.

 

Mr. Crossley stated number of bills from different areas was available in the computer, and he could get the information for Mr. Price.  Mr. Crossley referenced Page 3, lines 4 through 8, and pointed out there was a limit on local governments, and many local government bills were introduced at the beginning of session. 

 

Mr. Price discussed practices of other state legislatures relating to bills drafted and local government participation.  Mr. Price said he preferred to see more bills coming through legislators or the commission.

 

Mr. Garner expressed concerns and referenced Page 2, lines 30 through 34.  He told committee SB 23, which would be heard in Government Affairs Committee and which dealt with technical advisory and economic forum for assisting with the budget process, used the same breakdown as the legislators listed in lines 30 through 34.  Specifically Mr. Garner noted the breakdown would give Clark County a ratio of ten and other areas 30.  He questioned why the majority leader of the Assembly was not included in the scenario and asked how the breakdown was arrived at. 

 

Responding to Mr. Garner's question, Mr. Crossley explained the four people listed (the Speaker of the Assembly and the Majority Leader of the Senate had been declared the two leaders in each house, and the minority leaders also were there.  Majority leader of the Senate and Majority Leader of Assembly had jobs a little different from the standpoint of where they would fit into the party.

 

Mr. Garner observed a ratio of one to three existed, and Mr. Crossley agreed, commenting the ratio could change over time.

 

Mr. Petrak told Mr. Crossley one of the southern Nevada newspaper writers had written the average cost to have a bill drafted was approximately $700.  Some legislators would have a bill drafted without the requestor's name published on the bill which was a waste of money, and Mr. Petrak did not agree with the practice.  He asked Mr. Crossley for comments.

 

Mr. Crossley said not all bills requested were drafted and not all bills drafted were introduced.  It was a situation which could only be addressed by the legislature.

 

Continuing with the discussion, Mrs. Williams informed every session for the past eight years, the committee had tried to address the issue, but she felt the solution was for the requestor to have the name attached to the bill draft request.  The bureau knew where the bills originated, but they had an obligation and a duty not to reveal it.

 

Mr. Crossley referenced Mrs. Evans' question and called attention to Page 3, lines 9 and 10 which stated no limitations existed on interim studies.

 

Mrs. Williams appointed a subcommittee of Mr. Petrak, Mrs. Lambert and Mr. Garner stating she was confident the subcommittee would consider everyone's concerns.

 

Mrs. Williams closed the hearing on ACR 45.

 

ACR 47:     Directs Legislative Commission to conduct interim study of laws governing creation of taxing districts.

 

Mr. Price, prime sponsor of ACR 47, stated ACR 47 was requested from Committee on Taxation for an interim study.  He discussed the state and local magazine did a series on taxing districts across the United States entitled, "Taxing Districts, Secret Government."  All types of taxing districts had been created, he said.  Nevada had about 250 taxing districts, which included cities and counties, and it had been a long time since rules and guidelines for creating the taxing districts had been reviewed.  The Taxation Committee thought an interim study should be done to have knowledge of what Nevada had and also to look at future guidelines and tax policy regarding the taxing districts.

 

Since ACR 47 had been drafted, Mr. Price said other hearings in other areas had been held, and the committee thought it should expand the study to other policies including tax policy. 

 

Mrs. Williams felt the additional area of exemptions was critical, and the committee would want to expand the study to include exemptions.  Another area was the changing scene in Nevada (from pure gaming to family entertainment) and what was important to look at from a tax point of view. 

 

Mrs. Williams said with the committee's permission, an amendment would be needed so that when it was time to prioritize, the resolution would be clear and the goals to be accomplished by the study would be clear.

 

Discussion ensued among Mrs. Lambert, Mrs. Williams and Mr. Price regarding the study of taxing districts which Mrs. Lambert thought would be a phenomenal job since debt loads, types of bonds and approval of bonds would be studied.

 

Mrs. Williams thought Mr. Price, Mr. Crossley and Mr. Erickson could assist.  She asked if staff could run the exemptions in house, and Mr. Erickson replied this could be done. 

 

Mrs. Williams said the study committee could look at it from a policy perspective without research.  She did not think exemptions would be the big part.

 

Mrs. Lambert pointed out NRS was largely taxing districts and all were set up differently and dissolved differently.  She thought it was a very important issue to study and wondered if one committee could accomplish all of the study.

 

Mr. Price thought after the beginning, subcommittees could do a part of the work.  The subcommittee would consist of eight members appointed by the legislative commission.

 

Mrs. Williams thought if the study was developed in terms of subcommittees, it would be manageable.

 

Mr. Erickson believed a lot of the work could be done in advance by the staff.  He suggested putting the information in chart form to enable the name of the district to be seen on one side along with how they were elected.  While it would be a lot of staff intensive work, it could simplify the hearing process later on, he declared.

 

Mrs. Williams asked if anyone on the committee disagreed with having the amendments drawn to this resolution.

 

Mrs. Lambert suggested authorization for subcommittees be put into the resolution.  Mrs. Lambert also requested including in the amendment in the Resolved portion of Page 1, numbers 1 through 10, under #3 on line 17, the type of bonding the districts were authorized and the process for approval.

 

Mrs. Williams asked Mr. Price to obtain the amendment.

 

There being no further business to come before committee, the meeting was adjourned at 4:45 p.m.

 

      RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

                             

      BOBBIE MIKESELL

      Committee Secretary

 

 

??

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Assembly Committee on Elections and Procedures

June 1, 1993

Page: 1